On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 4:14 PM, Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Stefan Beller wrote:
>
>> Use is_submodule_populated_gently instead, which is simpler and
>> cheaper.
> [...]
>> --- a/submodule.c
>> +++ b/submodule.c
>> @@ -966,7 +966,9 @@ static int push_submodule(const char *path,
>> const struct string_list *push_options,
>> int dry_run)
>> {
>> - if (add_submodule_odb(path))
>> + int code;
>> +
>> + if (!is_submodule_populated_gently(path, &code))
>> return 1;
>
> Ah, I forgot about this detail. I don't think it should block this
> patch (so my Reviewed-by still stands), but I wonder why this needs to
> be gentle. add_submodule_odb is gentle so that is the conservative
> thing to do, but that doesn't mean it is the *right* thing to do.
>
> If this passed NULL instead of &code as the second argument, would
> anything break?
push_submodule, which is called by push_unpushed_submodules
just issues warnings on submodule push error, (which happen all
before the main push,) such that any submodule error does not prevent
the main push.
We could tighten that, but I would suggest another patch for that.
> Could there be a comment explaining what kind of error we are
> expecting and why it is okay to continue when that error is
> encountered without any error handling?
The same as in add_submodule_odb, digging through the
logs. I up to now we did not care about the submodule succeeding
as much, it was just an aid for the main repo push.
>
> Thanks,
> Jonathan
